He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Cittasanto wrote:but in regard to eating that decision process does not go as far as whether or not to take a life.

And I don't think anyone had suggested that it does (in the pre-merged thread).

Mr Man wrote:To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

Do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life".

It seems to me like you are just trying to distort everything that is said.

Mr Man wrote:And I don't think anyone had suggested that it does (in the pre-merged thread).

Mr Man wrote:To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales.

Do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life".

It seems to me like you are just trying to distort everything that is said.

not in the slightest, if something is inextricably interlinked it is difficult or impossible to disentangle or untie from that which it is joined.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?

Daverupa is that how you read it?

What I meant is that to have meat to eat animals must be killed (or for the picky animals must die). -

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

Well, it seems easy to read that way. Why not clarify it yourself, as they are your words?

Daverupa is that how you read it?

What I meant is that to have meat to eat animals must be killed (or for the picky animals must die). -

Since the sentence conveys an obvious thing, I had wondered why it needed to be said. It seemed likely there was a subtext.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.

Because they are inextricably interlinked. As daverupa said "the sentence conveys an obvious thing".

If animals were not killed there would not be meat to eat. If people did not eat meat, animals would not be killed for that purpose. Eating meat and the killing of animals are interlinked they are not the same thing.

Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means. you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.

Mr Man wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:

Mr Man wrote:Cittasanto, so do you think my statement "To imagine the the eating of meat is not inextricably interlinked with the killing of animals is denial on the most giant of scales" implies that the act of "eating meat" is the same as the act of "taking a life"?

you interlinked eating and killing in an inextricable way, so that is what it is saying.

Because they are inextricably interlinked. As daverupa said "the sentence conveys an obvious thing".

If animals were not killed there would not be meat to eat. If people did not eat meat, animals would not be killed for that purpose. Eating meat and the killing of animals are interlinked they are not the same thing.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Hanzze wrote:Such things as cannibalism are told to exist even today (there are many stories from Thailand for example), the sacrify of human decay just about 150 years in south east asia as I read in a scholar history book.

Did you know that Christians have Holy Communion (Eucharist) when they eat bread which signifies Jesus's flesh and drink wine which symbolizes Jesus's blood?This is symbolic cannibalism! And there are about 2.1 Billion Christians...

There is this belief in some tribes that if one eats the heart of brave warrior, one will become brave.

In some societies, especially tribal societies, cannibalism is a cultural norm. Consumption of a person from within the same community is called endocannibalism; ritual cannibalism of the recently deceased can be part of the grieving process,[26] or a way of guiding the souls of the dead into the bodies of living descendants.[27] Exocannibalism is the consumption of a person from outside the community, usually as a celebration of victory against a rival tribe.[27] Both types of cannibalism can also be fueled by the belief that eating a person's flesh or internal organs will endow the cannibal with some of the characteristics of the deceased.[28] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Reasons

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that ideal food for building the body, is another body because it has all the right proportions of all amino-acids. But of course this shouldn't be done for obvious reasons.

Of course I am against cannibalism.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Cittasanto wrote:Animals die, but death can happen by a number of means.

Of course but the meat that we eat is killed specifically for human consumption

yet this isn't the only source of meat people can have access to.meat from a natural death is quite prized is Cambodia and other places. I have eaten meat that the animal wasn't killed before without travelling.

Mr Man wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:you interlinked the eating with the killing and this is putting the blame upon the eater rather than the killer.

I'm not putting the blame on anybody.

OK, although that is a consequence of not seperating the process to where things happen and linking things too closely.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Mr Man wrote:I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".

If the two are not separate you did in fact accuse people of murdering animals, and tilts previous assertion would still be valid because the eater and acts of the producer(s) are not separate. Although, it is not a rationalisation in anyway it is just a fact of the intentions and motivations most people who eat meat in the west will have. But if you can show it is one and the same I would be interested in seeing the logic.

There is the death and then at a later point (after some carving up and preparation) there is eating. these are two separate parts, which, in most cases (particularly in the west) these will not be related with one persons intentions or motivations.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Mr Man wrote:I think the act of trying to seperate may be a "rationialization".

If the two are not separate you did in fact accuse people of murdering animals, and tilts previous assertion would still be valid because the eater and acts of the producer(s) are not separate. Although, it is not a rationalisation in anyway it is just a fact of the intentions and motivations most people who eat meat in the west will have. But if you can show it is one and the same I would be interested in seeing the logic.

There is the death and then at a later point (after some carving up and preparation) there is eating. these are two separate parts, which, in most cases (particularly in the west) these will not be related with one persons intentions or motivations.

It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.

With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.

My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).

Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.

The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.

With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.

That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).

My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).

Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Mr Man wrote:It is interlinked. Something topical in the UK news: If I want to take Rhino horn medicine I have to accept that medicine comes from a Rhino and that the Rhino was killed for the reason of making that medicine. I have become part of that process. I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death. To disassociate the Killing of Rhinos from the medicine would be a rationalization (which we all do all the time). The same analogy could be used with porn. View porn and you are becoming part of that industry. When we view porn our intention is not to degrade but the reality of the porn industry is that it degrades.

The interlinking is not a volitional interlinking (although in some cases it maybe). there is a relation between between A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones.

With regard to Tilts assertion I acknowledge that animals are killed in the process of providing me with food and I know to some extent this cannot be avoided (I rationalize) or more often than not I don't even think about it. I'm prepared to live with the fact that animals die in the production of food for me. I take responsibility.

That explains why you regarded it as facetious, even though it still is valid, and there is a relationship. However that for me does not make a vegetarian or Vegan... a Killer, it makes the person who volitionally killed the killer, which is the same for meat eaters (except those who order a specific animal to be killed as in the lobster example).

My understanding is that the Buddha didn't teach lay people to be vegetarian or to eat meat - maybe he didn't see it as being important?. If we eat meat so be it but I don't think we should say "I eat meat because Buddha didn't say be vegetarian" or because of "General Siha" or because the eating of meat is not connected with the killing of animals (not that anyone in particular is doing that).

Who eats meat because of General Siha? this goes to the difference between intention and motivation, there is a difference between explaining something and using as an excuse. I believe the only use has been to show as an example the difference between killing an animal and eating/buying meat.And no one is saying there is not a relationship between eating and an animal dying, only that your proximity is too close to the extent everyone without the volition is a killer.

Well I really think that I need to finish on this thread now but a couple of final comments: With regard to "A, B, & C, but none of them are any of the other ones." you will notice that I said "I haven't killed the Rhino but I am linked to its death". With regard to "Who eats meat because of General Siha? " in my opinion it it not unusual for people to try and use third party authority to justify their position. With regard to "proximity is too close". How close we wish to be to a particular enterprise is a personal decision, I personally think the link between eating meat and the killing of animals is pretty close. I don't think they are the same though. I think to say that eating meat is okay because there is no volition to kill is a "rationalization" and a cop out (even though I don't think eating meat is the same as killing).